Senate Bill 20 10, filed by Senator Paul Bettencourt, drew a lengthy and divided public hearing Wednesday in the Committee on Local Government, with proponents urging a statewide ban on local guaranteed‑income (GI) pilots and opponents describing personal and community benefits from recent programs.

Bettencourt said the bill is intended to enforce Article 3, Section 52 of the Texas Constitution, which prohibits gifts of public money to individuals, and to stop counties and cities from using federal or local funds to run guaranteed‑income schemes he described as "lottery socialism." He said some local governments used pandemic federal funds to launch large cash programs that were not authorized under state law.

Supporters of the bill included Paige Terryberry of FGA Action and James Quintero of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who said GI programs discourage work, foster dependency, and improperly redirect taxpayer funds. They noted that several states already have restrictions on guaranteed‑income pilots.

Opponents and several recipients of pilot payments told a different story. Witnesses who identified themselves as program participants described receiving $500 monthly for a period and said that the payments stabilized housing, helped them secure work or steady caregiving, and prevented evictions. Ingrid Cleveland said guaranteed income helped her obtain a living‑wage job, complete training, and eventually buy a house; other recipients from San Antonio and Bexar County reported improved food security and reduced financial stress.

Experts and advocates provided data and studies in both directions. Paige Terryberry and national providers cited research she said showed decreased debt, modest employment effects, and improved housing outcomes in several pilots. Opponents pointed to the Seattle and Denver studies where some researchers found reductions in hours worked for specific groups.

Much of the committee's questioning focused on the source of money used in local GI pilots. Bettencourt and others stressed the constitutional gift clause; witnesses identified federal COVID relief (ARPA) and other funds as sources of local program funding. Several senators asked whether federal grant conditions or maintenance‑of‑effort rules could constrain state or local decisions; stakeholders and TDHCA‑adjacent witnesses said that federal funds often come with conditions but that local governments previously used available federal funds to implement pilots.

Committee members repeatedly asked for more precise accounting of program costs and data about outcomes; witnesses agreed that administrative costs could be substantial. The Harris County program was cited often: witnesses said it attracted more than 82,000 applications for a lottery that awarded roughly 1,900 households and that county contracts included substantial technology and administrative fees. Kim Ogg, who testified on other bills, highlighted concerns about the large sums spent on program administration and the handling of applicant data.

No vote occurred. The committee left Senate Bill 20 10 pending and signaled it would continue work on legal definitions and the interaction between federal grant rules and state constitutional limits.

Ending: The bill remains pending as legislators requested state agencies and counties provide clearer accounting of spending, data on outcomes, and legal analyses about the use of federal funds.